http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ch...america-2010-4
Pretty mind blowing.
-Manny
Printable View
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ch...america-2010-4
Pretty mind blowing.
-Manny
There is always going to be rich and their is always going to be poor in our country. Get over it.
But Obama is just helping the poor stay poor, killing entrepreneurial spirt, preventing the rich from creating more jobs (through government strangulation) for the poor and creating a wealfare state that he thinks we need.
Common sense and an education is the only requirement to notice that.
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuronyourFace
Anyone who relies on someone else, will remain poor.
Its a shame that the information linked above does not support that. Yes, there will always be rich and poor but will the rich always have such a disproportionate levels of relative wealth? They haven't in the past.
Look at the charts. The numbers aren't made up.
An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?
The Rich have undoubtdly grown their wealth so why have the rest of us lagged behind.
When rich liberals start giving away their money, I'll start taking these kinds of threads seriously.
I'm with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Aren't there more really rich democrats than republicans?
"why have they not created more jobs"
Trickle down was always a Movement Conservative bullshit lie, like every other concept in Movement Conservative philosophy.
Good luck ever getting an honest question answered on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Can't answer a simple and direct question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Oh questions get answered, it's just that this particular question goes against everything wing-nuts believe about income distribution and redistribution.... they think the poor minorities are trying to keep them from buying the next ego boost that makes them look good among their rich friends......income redistribution does not target the rich, it targets the wealthy, there's a difference.....Shaq is rich, the guy who writes Shaq's check is wealthy...Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
It's weird how countries with socialist governments don't produce the Microsofts, Googles, and Apples of the world. They also don't invent Youtube, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, etc.
Why is that?
Why do lefties begrudge these entrepreneurs? Instead of having green eyes of jealousy, why not be inspired that we live in a country were these things are possible? Heck, we live in a country were a person who no one even heard of four years ago can become POTUS.
News flash: some people are more productive than others!
You should stick to posting youtubes instead of writing strawmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Redistribution to the bottom of the income scale = socialism
Redistribution geared to the top of scale = "pro-business, pro-individual" government policy.
I mean seriously, do you just enjoy kicking your own ass for fun or something? Are you one of boutons' trolls or something, put here to make the right look bad? Every single one of those companies piggybacked themselves on government research. The home computer comes as a result of massive government spending in WWII and the cold war. Every company you listed other than Apple owes their success to research by DARPA.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
It's weird how countries with reasonably regulated financial sectors don't fuck up the planet's economy and destroy $Ts in wealth.
It DOES happen, but you liberals just take all the money anyway to pay for your pre-emptive wars, unregulated wall street bail outs, and failed education initiatives. I can't really give you any examples of when shit was good for everyone other than the Clinton years, but that's cuz Reagan/Bush defeated the USSR. Now we're turning into those socialist, we gotta stop it and take up arms (to vote, that is!) against this war on the middle class that Obama is waging. We don't want hand outs, we just don't want to be taxed to death like Obama's been doing since he got into office!Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
"Reagan/Bush defeated the USSR"
You Lie
Quantify *taxed to death*, please.
How bad is it already?
I thought he was being sarcastic.
Makes more sense that way.
(anda crudo)
the US would qualify as reasonably regulated. go look up the Basel Accords and see if the US qualifies. There is a reason the entire world is feeling the hurt right now and it has nothing to do with rules or regulations. ITs much more basic than that. fiat currency is a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Lie? Okay, then YOU tell me who told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Hint: the same dudes whose ideas we need right now to get our country out of this mess.
Why is it mind blowing? People are part of a spectrum. At one end you have superior hard working people, at the other end you have people who didn't quite win at life. That's just how reality is.
When you have money, it is easy to make money with that money.
The Asians and Indians have figured out how to play the game by the 2nd or 3rd generation. I know why. You do too.
You guys really fail at reading comprehension sometimes. Its not news that there are poor people and that there are rich people. Thats not what this was about. This is about the amount of wealth a very small percentage of this country controls while the vast majority is left with minuscule table scraps.
For the longest time one of the foremost conservative talking points is that the more the rich get the more trickles down to everyone else but that isn't the case and there isn't any data to back that up.
The bottom part of this country is losing wealth to the top portion of this country which is contrary to everything conservatives have preached since Regan.
Explain how that works to me.
So the majority of Americans are unproductive?Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
I mean are you guys even looking at those graphs?
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...g-twenties.jpg
Look at that. the gap was steady for a very long and productive part of our nations history. We weren't socialists in the 40s 50s 60s and 70s, were we?
The bottom 50% of our country in economic terms controls a whopping 2.5% of the wealth here.
Do you not see any problems with this?
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...the-wealth.jpg
And what abouts stocks? Even worse.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...-and-bonds.jpg
Is the bottom 50% doing only 2.5 of the production in this country?
LOOK at this!
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...e-gap-grow.jpg
Production workers are anything but, right Doobs?
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...an-workers.jpg
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...n-50-years.jpg
We're making less money today than we were 40 years ago.
This one should get your attention even if somehow the rest of them have failed to.
The American Dream is about as good as the Lotto.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...ddle-class.jpg
But hey, someone out there is doing better.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...ed-the-gap.jpg
They've obviously gained productivity while the rest of us have not.
I know I know. Cut taxes for the rich and the rest of us will rise up because of their investment.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...r-the-rich.jpg
Oh...
Wait...
This just means we're more free than those damn socialist nations.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...-countries.jpg
This is more proof of how horrible some of those Euro nations have it.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...ike-france.jpg
Freedom ain't free...for the poor anyway.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...a-bum-deal.jpg
Nothing to see here.
So you fail at reading comprehension?Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Some are more productive than others. More productive. (Not necessarily harder working.) Where did I say that the majority of Americans are unproductve?
Or do you just enjoy twisting the words of others?
I ask for a reason why the inequality has grown and you bring up productivity and you accuse me of twisting words?Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
:lol
And further more do you enjoy going through the day pointing out inane obvious things? Can I expect your next post in the Spurs forum to be that some players are taller than others?Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
When I'm asking for reasons to a situation and you replay with a stupid tidbit of information how am I supposed to know you are just typing for the hell of it? I can only assume that you are replying.
In any event, lets say I do fail at reading comprehension and I love twisting your words. Why don't you lay out your explanation clearly as to make it untwistable.
Warren Buffet, democrat, gives away $37 BILLION to philanthropyQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Bill Gates, democrat, gives away half of his billions to the same thing
Hi.
Charitable giving (tax deductible) in USA is subsidized by taxpayers, not driven by human kindness.
If that's the cynical view in which you want to view their donations,
then DarrinS just owned himself. It's not possible to find what he said would take to convince him.
Oops!
FailQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Somehow, I think those yearly billions WB is giving away exceed his personal annual income, and therefore, ARE out of the goodness of his heart.Quote:
If you give more than 20% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) in any given year, you may start to be subject to deduction limits. How much? Let's say your AGI is $100,000, you spend practically nothing. and you have lots of cash that you want to give away to a fully accredited charity. Under that scenario, your deduction for the year would be limited to 50% of your AGI or $50,000.
http://sarabeth3283.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hug.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
People who don't have much are funny. They just don't get the concept of entrepreneurship. Therefore the idea of someone having more than them is mind boggling. Just astounding. So strange. Wow.
It's as if they can't fathom the idea of hard work-education-money makes money-intelligence-sophistication- All new concepts to the brain dead kool-aid drinking whiners of the world. Wah... whah...wah...life is unfair.
You will always have smarter people who know how to make money.
All new concepts to the entitlement generation. This generation hates successful people.
Well no... but 47% of you people don't pay any net taxes... so you are 3% off.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
What a sophisticated rant. You did everything but tell people to get off your lawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Another strawman from an ignorant right-winger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
I'm sure spursmania is from a different generation than obama
This whole thread is stupid. It only shows liberals don't understand wealth. The more you guys push on more socialism, protecting a class of non-productive people, the trend will get worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
i just want to let it be known, on record, state facts
i'm not poor
i work hard
i have my own money
i'm educated
i didnt vote for obama
i'm not a socialist
just so yall can all know
And yet another strawman from another ignorant right winger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"47% of you people don't pay any net taxes"
47% of what? 300M? 18+ year old adults?
Why explain something that's over other people's head, and would take several thousand words to make it complete?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Maybe if you can get past the class envy and class warfare, there could be grounds for beneficial discussions. Until then, I will not waste my time on such a complex topic.
47% of personal income tax filers.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Very arrogant response there. The only thing that flew over anyone's head was Manny's simple question that you keep dodging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Class warfare is Reagan and every president/congress since him raping the middle class's postwar wealth and shifting it up, with predictably disastrous results. Nice how you and every other Republican here shift the class warfare to being the poor vs the rich so you have easy targets like welfare moms to attack though.Quote:
Maybe if you can get past the class envy and class warfare, there could be grounds for beneficial discussions. Until then, I will not waste my time on such a complex topic.
Because society has decided these "working poor" don't have to pay income tax is not these peoples' fault.
Would any of you let's-beat-up-on-the-non-taxpayers assholes like to swap your taxed income for their non-taxed income? didn't think so.
These working poor also provide a disproportionate %age of cannon fodder to get killed and maimed in bullshit wars, where the income tax paying (middle/upper) families contribute much less fodder. Where's your gratitude for the lower class keeping your tax-paying asses out of the wars?
The income-tax non-payers still pay sales tax, FICA, property tax, etc, etc.
What is the income level, for family of 4, or single, at which no income tax is paid?
I didn't notice one directed at me, but I ignored most this thread because of it's stupidity. Especially Manny's numerous posts over, and over, and over...Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
What is the simple question you refer to?
I don't see that. I see the wealth being increased in those who strive for improvement. The larger the 'nanny state class" gets, the bigger the disparaging numbers will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
No, it's you guys who do that. Why complain about the rich then? What can't you treat rich people with the respect you give someone who isn't rich?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
There it is. Manny's been trying to get you Republicans to address it the entire thread, but no one has yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
You don't see that the middle class's wealth has been shifted up and that the country is once again in a horrible shape with the majority of the country worse off than previous generations? I know, I know, everyone born after 1970 is a lazy fuck.Quote:
I don't see that. I see the wealth being increased in those who strive for improvement. The larger the 'nanny state class" gets, the bigger the disparaging numbers will be.
Right. This thread is clearly about how much ground the middle class has lost. But continue strawmanning away; it's all anyone expects of you anymore.Quote:
No, it's you guys who do that. Why complain about the rich then? What can't you treat rich people with the respect you give someone who isn't rich?
That's not such a simple question. For one thing, they shelter their money as much as possible to avoid taxes of it. When they do that, the money isn't being very productive. If they didn't pay punitive taxes, they might be inclined to shelter less, take more as taxable income, and spend it in the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
You are right about this trend. There are several reasons for it. We are even worse off than it appears because our costs are down because of cheap imports. At the same time, we have less manufacturing jobs, and more people relying on subsidies.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
However, it is not the rich people's fault. Blame the regulations and laws.
Everyone is losing. Not just the middle class. The wealthy seem like they aren't losing ground, but they are too if you compare it to real inflation, and not the phony government numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Think supply and demand for wages, like anything else in life, it applies. We have less manufacturing jobs than before and more low skilled workers. wages are severely depressed. My lifestyle I had in 1978 was far better than today. My expenses are about five times greater, but my income is less than four times what it was then. I think many of us are in the same boat.
Look at what you complain about. What the media tells you to. Oil prices... What a joke. Why not complain in the ever rising food prices?
Maybe because food stamps comer so many people but we don't get gas stamps?
Stop focusing on these fake issues. Look at the real ones. Anyone who is poor and does want to better themselves can, but it is increasingly difficult. The democrats have these people right where they want them. Needing more help from democrats. This is political power. Holding the lively hood of voters. Nobody ho is beholden to the government will break free of this self imposed poverty.
It's REAL simple: all you have to do is look southward at the failed state of Mexico to see what happens when the rich/poor divide gets too large. Or, alternately, at late eighteenth century France. Mexico is us in like 25 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Really? Then explain the above information please.
You may want to look at the numbers again. They aren't losing it. We are. Thats the entire point.Quote:
Everyone is losing. Not just the middle class. The wealthy seem like they aren't losing ground, but they are too if you compare it to real inflation, and not the phony government numbers.
I'm not a liberal by any means... nor have any socialist tendencies...
But a widenning of wealth inequality during hard economic times is a recipe for disaster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I voted for Obama. Your insinuation of defining people as right wingers for having a particular opinion is laughable and tenuous at best.
This is easily a bigger deal than the OP, which (unsurprisingly) is actually an attack on the Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec24Row7
Avoiding taxes through various "legal and fair" methods and voting in ideologies that support more of the same will only break the back of those who actually do the paying.
What some of you folks don't understand is that wealth ALWAYS re-distributes at some point. The only question is will violence be involved? Keeping so much away from so many just isn't viable, long term. It's like continually turning up the heat on a pressure cooker. It's going to explode eventually. The pressure valve that has been effective is taxation, and more specifically, inheritance taxes on the rich. Those don't penalize hard workers, just fucking lazy-ass kids like Paris Hilton. I can't believe how trailer-town was snookered into supporting the inheritance tax rollback that only affects like 2% of people, and then only after they're DEAD. :lol
Fine, then I'll just call you ignorant (and leave off the right-winger part) for your ridiculous strawman argument. The fact that you voted for Obama when he made it clear in his campaign that he was going to try to deliver a public health plan that you railed against on this forum is quite laughable, and reinforces the point. Unless by voting for Obama you meant you did it in the primary because Rush told you to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
I will not debase you with insults for having an opinion. Yet, another generalization on your part, "because Rush told you" speaks volumes about your political make-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I know lots of people who pull out the "I voted for Obama" card and come to find out they did it in the primaries as part of Operation Chaos or whatever that was called. So you voted for Obama in the November 4th election even though all he did on the campaign trail was bitch about the nation's disparity in wealth and how he was going to push a public health plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Because they don't know what costs they will have to bare for Obamacare, Crap & trade, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
A good businessman doesn't overextend himself financially with such hate the rich unknowns on the horizon.
There is a book called The Millionaire Next Door that was written about 15 years ago. I would highly recommend this book to people that are obsessed with this so-called wealth "inequality".
If we were all blessed with the same intelligence, creativity, skill, etc., then I might have more of an issue with there being a large wealth discrepancy.
Kobe Bryant makes about $280K per game. That doesn't even include money from endorsements, etc. Is that fair? Well, I guess it's not fair that I wasn't born with his athletic ability. Life isn't fair. Get over it.
So there is or isnt a "trickle down" effect?
So we should or shouldn't support tax cuts on the richers?
Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc. Any of you resident libtards ever checked out the financial statements for your Democratic "leaders" in Congress? Pelosi's yearly financial statements would make all of the above, as well as quite a few athletes, blush.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Why do you see these charts as a vilification of the rich?
Some people are idiot wanna-be serfs, who read books about how awesome rich people are before willingly lubing up their own asses and bending over.
Some people aren't.
Because it makes his argument easier if he assumes that unsound premise. Same reason spursmania and DarrinS said the same stupid shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
work=tahoes
I guess they've been pricing in Obamacare since 1980.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Your answer is flat out wrong according to the information put forth in this thread.
-Manny
[QUOTE=Aggie Hoopsfan;4230099]Yep. I love how libtards like to villify bankers, traders, doctors, etc. Any of you resident libtards ever checked out the financial statements for your Democratic "leaders" in Congress? Pelosi's yearly financial statements would make all of the above, as well as quite a few athletes, blush.[/QUOTE
Can you just do me a favor and point out when the trickle down is going to start? These figures all point to a trickle up, not tricke down, effect.
Can you explain that please?
[quote=Jekka;4230901]Is this still Manny posting or is it Janelle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekka
Because these are mine:
1.With this wealth inequality we have, it means bullshit. If we have such a huge wealth gap but a high standard of living, then fuck it. Beats having wealth parity and a shit standard of living (ex Cuba).
2. Wealth does not equal income. Wealth is assets, and if the middle class can't acquire assets then it can never accrue wealth. Instead the poor and middle class are buying liabilities like expensive houses, cars, gadgets, instead of bonds, real estate, or starting a buisiness.
3. Your solutions for this problem are going to be shit. First you bitch about wealth inequality, but then want to pass more buisiness regulation like the provision in the Obamacare that makes small up and coming buisiness who have over a certain amount of chains to pay lab fees to have a nutrition menu. So That's going to hinder small buisinesses from acquiring and creating new wealth.
4. If the problem is that the poor and middle class has no access to creating wealth, your solution is not wealth distrubution but income distrubution while still maintaining the regulation that benefit big corporations and hinder small buisiness and or enterprise. So at most Cheryl and Don will get 4000 dollars in tax refunds at the end of the year from the rich, only to pay off debt to acquire more debt because 4000 dollars isn't gonna do much shit to start a buisiness to comply with govt reg.
5. You're the problem, progressives are. Corporations are running circles around you and they are willing to pay taxes to uncle sam so long as your party ensures through tough reg that it keeps competitors out of the job market.
There is a trickle down effect in that job oppurtunities open up to the poor. But you can't distribute wealth, only income. Money isn't going to make one spend it on assets. More than likely the middle class will spend it on Plasmas. That's not the rich's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Govt reg doesn't help out either.
Wow, lots of strawmen, moving goalposts and the like here.
Manny's point is rather obvious. Income gaps are important. Why? Because, as exstatic mentioned, the larger the gap, the more the people at the bottom are wondering why they put up with it. That's how most revolutions get started, after all.
Hell, look at OUR revolution. America wasn't even that poor... we were just pissed that we couldn't sell our goods the way we wanted, and we didn't have a say in our taxation. That was enough for us to go against what was then the mightiest country in the world.
And people think that income inequalities aren't anything to worry about?
As far as the whole "trickle-down" effect, where's the evidence? Manny's posted a ton of data that show as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That goes in direct evidence against the "trickle-down" theory.
Those who bitch about the middle-class having "bad spending habits" are missing the point: even including bad spending habits, the gap is bigger.
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...an-workers.jpg
This chart is the one that really goes against the trickle-down effect, in my mind. How can CEO pay jump so dramatically, while worker pay stays flat?
Is it a form of collusion, where every company keeps wages low, knowing that people will have to work for essentials? Is it simple greed? Is it regulations? I'd like to see an honest THEORY about how one class can jump so much while another stays grounded.
America is becoming more socialist! Like Europe! SEE!?!
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...-countries.jpg
Oh... well... the rich are getting taxed WAY MORE than ever! Taxes are increasing to the point where the rich can barely afford to make a profit!
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...r-the-rich.jpg
.... obviously, the charts are wrong because they were created by a liberal...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Does Kobe have an agent? An accountant? Maids? Landscapers? Pool maintenance? Interior designers?
CEO's get a big chunk of their compensation in the form of stock options. The workers don't. Therefore CEO pay will follow the market, up or down, while worker pay stays constant. If you'd like worker pay to track CEO pay more closely, then all you need to do is take a big chunk of the workers pay and give it to them in the form of stock options instead of cash. How many workers do you think would be in favor of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuronyourFace
I agree with your basic sentiment; and am (really) conservative as they come; but this current accumulation of wealth has not been a healthy one. It is not, in large part, based on ingenuity and hard work - it is based on manipulation of markets, power centers, etc...."Corporatism" is the catch all for it.
In 1995 I finished a one year stint as a network administrator at A&M - at the end of which I had $1,800 in a retirement account funded through that job. I never rolled that into my other accounts; I moved it aside by itself into an investment account - a moderate growth mutual fund.
Today, FIFTEEN years later - that account has a value of $1,500 - but the marketing material for that same account claims 10 - 15% growth over most of that period; meaning I ought to have 5 grand. Somebody got my $300 - and the proceeds for the interest on that account; but it ain't me.
That is happening in much larger numbers on retirement accounts all over th place - AND, as we all know, funny crap with mortgages, petroleum; you name it; the "Wall Street Bankers" are robbing us blind; they design the schemes, run the schemes and are the ONLY ones who understand the schemes; the rest of us are too busy working to pay attention to it. They also make sure and keep Congress and the WH in their pocket to make damn sure nothing ever gets curtailed.
These are not the Fords and Edisons - or even the Carnegies and Rockefellers! These cats are useless - not doing any good for anyone - but, IMO are a GREAT number of the ultra rich included in that chart.
I own a small business with 30 employees; and I'm doing fine - trying to do it the old fashioned way; those guys piss me off as much, or more, than the "free loaders" of our society; but do FAR more damage.
So has CEO compensation changed that greatly since 1994? 1994 seems to be a clear delineation marker as far as CEO pay ramping upward greatly.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.
Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.
There's a problem with that theory; the people who perform the above could theoretically get new jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I don't think job creation=trickle down.
After all, isn't it a tenet that the majority of the poor will benefit from the rich having more money? If so, how does that work in the face of evidence that income inequality is greater than the past, and the poor have less wealth?
Are we going by the "young people don't know the value of a dime!" reasoning?
I hesitate to think that the Fords and the Edisons wouldn't, or didn't, try to use any schemes available to make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Hate to say it, but when people profess the idea that "Greed is good"... well, it's pretty obvious that people are going to try to game the system.
In today's world, where you can generate billions of transactions and cross-scan those for correlations, and any other number of technological wonders... it just gives more ways for people to game the system, especially if said system is byzantine.
1994 was the year the tech boom started, and that pulled the entire stock market higher. Executives who have compensation that depends in large part on what happens in the stock market will benefit disproportionately during such times. If you look at 2000-2002 though, executive compensation fell drastically when worker compensation did not. Again, it's all about one group's income being incredibly volatile, for better or worse, because it's tied to the stock market, and one group's income not being volatile, for better or worse, because it's based strictly on wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Look at what the high end tax rates were back then. As late as 1963 there was a 91% income tax bracket. Now that tax rate is 35%. It's become a lot easier for the rich to make money. Personally, I'm okay with it, a 91% tax bracket is 100% absurd IMHO. But everyone's free to make up their own mind as to whether or not that's been a good thing.Quote:
And per Manny's chart earlier, the wealth of the middle-class CAN raise upwards, and did seem higher in the 50's, 60's and 70's, which somewhat defeats your thesis.
No worries.Quote:
Honestly, I'm not being a prick, just looking for answers.